Gates: Veto possible of military gay ban bill

[WillParkinson]

Gates: Veto possible of military gay ban bill
By The Associated Press
06.21.2010 8:46am EDT

(Washington) Defense Secretary Robert Gates says President Barack Obama could end up vetoing legislation that would lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Obama supports repealing the law, and the White House has pushed for quicker congressional action than the Pentagon has favored. Gates also supports repeal.

But Gates tells “Fox News Sunday” that Obama probably still would veto an upcoming spending bill that includes the repeal – if the bill also contains money for defense projects he says are wasteful.

Gates wants to get rid of an aircraft engine and additional transport aircraft that some lawmakers want to keep. They generally represent areas with defense contractors that would stand to lose business from the cuts.

http://www.365gay.com/news/gates-veto-possible-of-military-gay-ban-bill/

[tekisui]

1. Oh boy.

That sounds bad.

[TheWraith]

2. Not really. If he follows through, then Congress re-passes the bill without the pork.

No harm done. That's assuming that he does actually veto the military approps bill, of course.

[FreeState]

10. No harm? Tell that to the families losing their careers n/t

[Unvanguard]

11. It will probably not alter the timeline of DADT ending.

And getting rid of the ridiculous military spending in question is an excellent idea.

[FreeState]

13. "Probably" isn't good enough when it comes to civil rights IMO n/t

[qazplm]

4. no

he's saying the veto would be because of the pork, not the gay ban lift.

[msongs]

3. gee maybe this was the plan all along, then obama can blame "others" nt

[qazplm]

5. so you think

that regardless of whatever else is in this bill, he should sign it because it has the gay ban lift in it?
Or should he maybe look at the whole bill?

[tekisui]

6. I think if he can't get a defense bill from a Democratic Congress

that meets both the budgetary goals and the repeal of DADT, it is a failure of leadership.

[qazplm]

7. I think it's a failure of Congress personally

since that would be the branch involved.

Leadership would be vetoing unacceptable provisions.

[tekisui]

8. Obama is the leader of the party.

Blaming Congress only goes so far.

If he is serious about the DADT repeal, he should demand the Democratic Congress get it to him, either in a good bill or on its own.

We'll see if he does actually veto it. Then, if he can get the Democratic Congress to send him a better one.

[joeybee12]

9. It's like using Liar-berman on HCR to oppose the public option so that

it doesn't look like Obama killed it, whcih is what he really wanted to do...Congress is a reactionary branch, there is no leadership, if told and guided by the President, they fall in line...the fault lies with Obama.

[Unvanguard]

12. They will pass some form of the legislation. They effectively have to.

If the version that passes does not include any DADT repeal provision, Obama and the Democratic leadership will deserve harsh criticism. But that has not happened yet.

[NorthCarolina]

14. That was my first thought as well. A set-up from the get-go. eom